The local columns of the city papers, or of most of them, yesterday morning, made reference to the interment of the body of this dead Federal officer, and intimated that it was intentionally so put away as not to be found any more.
This it was inferred was considered a well merited disposal of the last of him. We know nothing positively on the subject, yet since this statement has reached the public we venture to suggest that the remains might have been applied more profitably.
The only use to which we can practically devote the remains of the dead is to employ them with some moral advantage to the living.
We bury with ceremony and pomp the great and the good, and mark their resting place with a tomb of enduring material, on which we inscribe some account of their virtues for the admiration and emulation of future generations.
Why may we not derive a beneficial lesson from a monument of an opposite character ? Suppose
Dahlgren to be buried in a prominent place, and that a stone should be set up over it simply and briefly stating that there he was and who he was. It would be a monument of infamy — a beacon to warn all of the fate of one so execrable.
The youth of
Richmond, when passing the spot, would derive fresh courage and renewed determination to defend their country and their homes as they contemplated the last resting place of the man who led on a band that came to burn their city and to butcher her people.
Don't put
Dahlgren entirely away — let his memory live and endure as long as possible.
